Will the demands increase? Employers are sometimes told that arbitration could increase the number of fees because arbitration is easier to initiate. Not so, according to a survey by a large New York law firm that concluded that there was no increase in work applications when arbitration clauses are used by employers. A 36-seitts article from the law firm of DePaul, Hastings, Jenofsky and Walker discusses (and supports) in detail the use of arbitration clauses by employers. The conclusion that arbitration clauses do not increase claims is supported by Bank of America`s experience in California after beginning to use arbitration clauses in its loan contracts: more than two and a half years elapsed before the first arbitration was filed in agreements containing a compromise clause. B of A`s lawyers have come to the conclusion (and common sense suggests) that claims decrease because the complainant`s lawyers are reluctant to engage in marginal cases when they are denied the (unfair) advantage of a sympathetic jury. The Oregon Court of Appeals applied this analysis to find that Portland Adventists` Grievance and Arbitration Procedure was not unacceptable in a staff manual. It found that the agreement was not materially unacceptable because, although it waived the right to a jury (like all arbitration agreements), it did not unduly restrict the worker`s rights or remedies that would be available in court. It is interesting to note that the Court expressly held that the fact that the agreement required workers to bring an action within 90 days of the action in question was not materially unacceptable, whereas the applicable limitation period was one year. The Tribunal also found that the agreement was not procedurally unacceptable: the employee, a sales and marketing professional, signed several confirmations that he had received the staff manual with the arbitration agreement and knew what he had signed. (a) at least 72 hours before the worker`s first working day, the worker informed the employer, in a written offer of employment, that an arbitration agreement was required as a condition of employment, and the worker received the necessary arbitration agreement, which complies with and includes subsection (6) of Section 6 of this section; Or, however, as explained below, Oregon courts may consider unilateral arbitration agreements less favorable in an employment context.
Thu Apr 8 , 2021